(I knew I'd be bad at regular posting, but the honeymoon period ended before it even began!).
On welfare - I think your position, as you describe it here, is entirely conservative. A 'bridge' is a nice metaphor.
"We probably agree on this with the exception that I’d be more inclined to focus on trying to do it well, and you’d be skeptical [sic] that it can be done well." I'm not sure I agree with that. I think with taxpayers' money at stake, as well as left-equalling levels of compassion (indeed, less the patronising), I, and the right, would certainly focus on it being done well. In fact, as I climb up to the moral high ground of my soap box (!), I'd go as far as to say the right would certainly focus on success compared to the left and its self-serving, egotistical emphasis on appearing to be making things better - of not, why persist with policies both sides of the Atlantic which have self-evidently failed to make things better for the under-classes? (OK, call me on it if you wish, right now I haven't time to substantiate any of the above, but I know it to be true, in my water).
justindz
· 1 year ago
I can't call you on it not making anything better with out any data indicating that it has. I guess the area of contention might be what you do with people who really are lazy, un-employable, unfit for military service, etc. Letting them roam free as criminals or engage in some other socially burdensome activity has a shared social cost which could be (in theory) higher than the cost of maintaining them on minimal welfare.
That might be the difficult bit to work out. One thing I've noticed with many conservatives is an argument that anyone without sufficient personal responsibility and drive should be left to rot (that's a bit inflammatory--how about... decompose). While I agree with this in principle, the practical matter is that the rest of us do pay a cost for such an approach so it may be more pragmatic to do some minimal level of taking care of indigents because that's actually cheaper and less problematic for society as a whole. I guess you'd be mostly concerned that non-indigents who were only partially lazy would take advantage of that system.
All Comments
On welfare - I think your position, as you describe it here, is entirely conservative. A 'bridge' is a nice metaphor.
"We probably agree on this with the exception that I’d be more inclined to focus on trying to do it well, and you’d be skeptical [sic] that it can be done well." I'm not sure I agree with that. I think with taxpayers' money at stake, as well as left-equalling levels of compassion (indeed, less the patronising), I, and the right, would certainly focus on it being done well. In fact, as I climb up to the moral high ground of my soap box (!), I'd go as far as to say the right would certainly focus on success compared to the left and its self-serving, egotistical emphasis on appearing to be making things better - of not, why persist with policies both sides of the Atlantic which have self-evidently failed to make things better for the under-classes? (OK, call me on it if you wish, right now I haven't time to substantiate any of the above, but I know it to be true, in my water).
That might be the difficult bit to work out. One thing I've noticed with many conservatives is an argument that anyone without sufficient personal responsibility and drive should be left to rot (that's a bit inflammatory--how about... decompose). While I agree with this in principle, the practical matter is that the rest of us do pay a cost for such an approach so it may be more pragmatic to do some minimal level of taking care of indigents because that's actually cheaper and less problematic for society as a whole. I guess you'd be mostly concerned that non-indigents who were only partially lazy would take advantage of that system.